The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Are REVENGE PORN laws constitutional?
| impertinent library | 12/02/14 |
| Laughsome green casino mexican | 12/02/14 |
| dashing aggressive people who are hurt headpube | 12/02/14 |
| impertinent library | 12/02/14 |
| mauve insane stead wrinkle | 12/02/14 |
| Laughsome green casino mexican | 12/02/14 |
| Irradiated buck-toothed orchestra pit blood rage | 12/02/14 |
| impertinent library | 12/02/14 |
| slap-happy swashbuckling field | 12/02/14 |
| bespoke insanely creepy gaping messiness | 12/02/14 |
| impertinent library | 12/02/14 |
| Balding Market Haunted Graveyard | 01/06/15 |
| impertinent library | 01/06/15 |
| Milky Seedy Skinny Woman Masturbator | 01/06/15 |
| irate aquamarine dilemma lettuce | 01/06/15 |
| Nudist crystalline church building queen of the night | 04/06/15 |
| spectacular turdskin quadroon | 11/23/17 |
| electric address | 11/23/17 |
| Mahogany circlehead institution | 04/06/15 |
| Translucent thriller mood office | 04/06/15 |
| Boyish demanding set | 11/23/17 |
| Boyish demanding set | 11/23/17 |
| electric address | 11/23/17 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 2nd, 2014 12:27 PM Author: impertinent library That it's a photograph in question, legally obtained and owned, should be no different than the legality of relaying a true story that happened ("my GF is a slut") or other material. In a free society, it is our right to distribute this kind of information at will, should it not cross the line to harassment or fraudulence. Ethically it sucks, but shouldn't be criminalized.
Criminalizing photography or sharing of photography is absolutely fucked. People need to know that if you let someone photograph you that those photo belong to that person. This applies in every other case so distorting the law to reflect people's dislike of revenge porn is nothing more than stupid legislation. |
 |
Date: December 2nd, 2014 12:30 PM Author: Laughsome green casino mexican right of publicity muddies the waters, but yeah, generally when a person takes a picture without invading someone's privacy (as in a locker room), it's theirs to do with what they want. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842036) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 12:31 PM Author: dashing aggressive people who are hurt headpube What about my boys locker room photos? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842041) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 12:33 PM Author: impertinent library so this should PWN upskirt laws too, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842051) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 12:44 PM Author: mauve insane stead wrinkle See that recent Texas ruling. You can take upskirt photos like NBD (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842103) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 12:51 PM Author: Laughsome green casino mexican tricky spot (tee hee). a good rule of thumb is that if you can see it from a place/vantage point you're allowed to be in, then you've got a good argument. the guys that basically stick cameras up under dresses/skirts are going to have more trouble with the new laws that are being written. I think people have a reasonable expectation of privacy under their clothes.
but dudes that just chill on benches or stairs and watch the show, can't say there's anything wrong there. paparazzi are the same with girls getting in and out of cars. |
Date: December 2nd, 2014 12:41 PM Author: Irradiated buck-toothed orchestra pit blood rage Learned Pimp, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Today we overrule all prior precedents pertaining to the right of privacy, in light of the compelling prurient interests of amoral porn addicts everywhere. |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 1:21 PM Author: impertinent library (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842291) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 2:02 PM Author: slap-happy swashbuckling field (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842491) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 1:58 PM Author: bespoke insanely creepy gaping messiness I'm against revenge porn laws because sluts don't deserve protection. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842475) |
|
Date: December 2nd, 2014 2:03 PM Author: impertinent library cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#26842492) |
|
Date: January 6th, 2015 8:14 PM Author: Balding Market Haunted Graveyard NFL player hit with revenge porn charges http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/01/nfl-player-hit-with-revenge-porn-charges/
I fail to see how these laws are constitutional and not just feminist garbage
Keep your fucking clothes on, women |
|
Date: January 6th, 2015 8:15 PM Author: impertinent library cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#27068387) |
|
Date: January 6th, 2015 8:16 PM Author: Milky Seedy Skinny Woman Masturbator Explain invasion of privacy laws or whatever though... By that reasoning those would be unconstitutional too, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#27068398) |
|
Date: January 6th, 2015 8:20 PM Author: irate aquamarine dilemma lettuce Could go either way. Revenge porn is clearly not "core speech", so I can see it being criminalized with a narrow statute. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#27068419) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2015 10:35 PM Author: Nudist crystalline church building queen of the night oh, it's not 'core speech', I see. lol @ THE MAJESTY OF THE LAW. it's just a great big morass of ad hoc bullshitting. |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2017 2:25 PM Author: spectacular turdskin quadroon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#34756756) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2017 2:35 PM Author: electric address (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#34756794) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2015 10:02 PM Author: Mahogany circlehead institution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#27636021) |
|
Date: April 6th, 2015 10:37 PM Author: Translucent thriller mood office some dood got 18 yrs in prison for that. He's a white male though, so nobody defends him. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#27636336) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2017 2:26 PM Author: Boyish demanding set My god law school was awful. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#34756757) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2017 2:27 PM Author: Boyish demanding set Does this box fit into this box? And they're not boxes, their concept networks with no foundations. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#34756763) |
|
Date: November 23rd, 2017 2:35 PM Author: electric address (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2744877&forum_id=2#34756795) |